User:Z5016784

From CellBiology

My Student Page

Attendance

Z5016784 (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2016 (AEDT)

Z5016784 (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2016 (AEDT)

Z5016784 (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2016 (AEDT)

Z5016784 (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2016 (AEST)

Z5016784 (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2016 (AEST)

Z5016784 (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2016 (AEST)

Z5016784 (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2016 (AEST)


  • Z8600021 Attended only 7 practical classes.

Lab 1 Assessment

Search PubMed

prokaryote cytoskeleton

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=eukaryotic+cytoskeleton

PMID 26756351

Katherine Ann Hurley, Thiago M A Santos, Gabriella M Nepomuceno, Valerie Huynh, Jared T Shaw, Douglas B Weibel Targeting the bacterial division protein FtsZ. J. Med. Chem.: 2016; PubMed 26756351


How to make an in-text citation

Bacterial division protein FtsZ.[1]

  1. Katherine Ann Hurley, Thiago M A Santos, Gabriella M Nepomuceno, Valerie Huynh, Jared T Shaw, Douglas B Weibel Targeting the bacterial division protein FtsZ. J. Med. Chem.: 2016; PubMed 26756351

Links

Testz8600021

Carnegie stage table

Lecture 1

SMH Sydney Paper

BioMed Central

Model of hypercoupled cytoskeleton.png

Acute loss of Gβ induces a hyper coupled cytoskeleton[1]

What i Learnt

In today's cell biology prac class, i have learnt how to set up my very own cell biology wiki page, also i now know how to include references to external and internal links, how to identify if a resource is allowed to be used for personal projects and assessments. A wide rang of annotations can be used to tidy up my own page and carefully structure all my work to be accessed easily and efficiently. Pub med is a great resource to use which is based in the US as well as Bio med central and other journals located in the resource section of the cell biology wiki. By adding specific annotations to a pub med identification number i was allowed to automatically add a full reference which saves time.

Lab Assessment 2

  • Z8600021 Where is the reference that you used for this information? There is no uploaded super resolution image either (2/5)

Super resolution microscopy is a vastly used form of light microscopy in which it uses the diffraction of light. This allows images to be taken with much higher resolution then the usual limits of other microscopy’s. TRAM (translation Microscopy) is a multi-colour super resolution microscopy technique that restores multiple diffraction- limited resolution using a microscope while translating in the image plane. Ideally Tram is able to be used in any microscope hence it being easy to use and efficient at producing high detailed images.

In optical microscopy, image resolution is limited by standard diffraction limit which is approximately 200nm for light. Any resolution that exceeds the 200nm is known as super resolution in light microscopy. 3 different processes have supported this statement. STED or SIM (Structured illumination microscopy) uses optical patterning and nonlinear response of the sample taken. SMLM (single molecule Localisation Microscopy) which freeze point PSF (Point spread function) separated in time, also a more modern and recent technology that is used is FMRI (functional magnetic resonance imagining) which is used in medical industries to achieve optimum super resolution images.

However, just like other microscopy’s, TRAM does in fact have its limitations, such as while it relies on the intensity of information at the pixel stage, blenching occurs causing the restoration of the image to be unseeable, causing shady sports over the image. Apart form the limitations TRAM has, it remains to be used as a microscope without any hardware modification. It is more robust then other super resolution microscopy when identifying fluorescence biological imagining.

Peer Review

  • Z8600021 - This is a reasonable assessment of the group projects. I find your 5 points a little too brief with regard to what I had asked students to prepare in the way of a peer assessment/feedback exercise. Your mark could have been improved if you had provided more detail and variety in your feedback (often using the same feedback to each group). 15/20)

Group 1

1. Introduction is quite small but precise, with an extensive history section

2. Very well presented and great use of images

3. Use of glossary helps to create a deeper understanding for the intended audience

4. Quite small reference list, indication that much more references are needed

5. In comparison to other projects, it could still be extended by adding more headings and information

Group 2

1. Good use of History and introduction, required information is all present although a few years in the history can be removed as it contains a bit of irrelevant information

2. The introduction seemed to contain only 2 references, maybe more information should be included

3. Use of collapsed tables and diagrams are very well positioned to help create a deeper understanding

4. The overall report is interesting and clear to read, however there are a few unfinished sentences and some parts seem to target a different set of audience as in it gets very complicated

5. Very large reference list which is great, clearly shows that the group went to a lot of effort to research RBCs

Group 3

1. Very small history section, perhaps add a few more years in it

2. A simple and concise set out to their report which made it easy and clear to read

3. Lack of glossary and small reference list need to be added and improved upon

4. Good use of images overall

5. Few spelling errors, which the report needs to be looked over before submitting

Group 4

1. A massive jump in history from 1987 to 2007, possible something could be added in-between to an otherwise small history section

2. Lack of a glossary which is needed however the reference list is a reasonable size possible be more if more information is added

3. Overall the report is very bland, lack of subheadings under headings and lack of bullet points doesn’t help the reader stay interested

4. More images is definitely needed

5. The function section needs to be re done, it needs to be split up better to intrigue the reader

Group 5

1. Introduction is well written, it touches up on different aspects of mast cells and includes multiple references

2. Only group to colour there history tables, it is large and informative

3. Overall there is a lot of tables and images which helps intrigue the reader, Well done

4. Very large reference list which is great, however there isn’t much to fault about this report except the very small glossary which needs to be increased

5. This report would have to be the most well written report out of the bunch, very clear and concise, interesting to read with great use of images and tables

Group 6

1. Great introduction yet seems a little long and good use of the video, it intrigues the readers and makes the report more fun

2. History was placed away from the introduction, personally I think that its best to be placed after the introduction in which all the other projects have done

3. Lack of glossary is a downfall and needs to be worked on, large reference list is great

4. Good use of images all over the project

5. Overall it is a great report, maybe remover a little bit from the introduction, reposition the history and work on a glossary, apart from that well done


[2]

File:Multi-color TRAM of a pulmonary endothelial cell.png
  1. Oliver Hoeller, Jared E Toettcher, Huaqing Cai, Yaohui Sun, Chuan-Hsiang Huang, Mariel Freyre, Min Zhao, Peter N Devreotes, Orion D Weiner Gβ Regulates Coupling between Actin Oscillators for Cell Polarity and Directional Migration. PLoS Biol.: 2016, 14(2);e1002381 PubMed 26890004
  2. Zhen Qiu, Rhodri S Wilson, Yuewei Liu, Alison R Dun, Rebecca S Saleeb, Dongsheng Liu, Colin Rickman, Margaret Frame, Rory R Duncan, Weiping Lu Translation Microscopy (TRAM) for super-resolution imaging. Sci Rep: 2016, 6;19993 PubMed 26822455